Are we romanticizing mass murder?
By SOPHIE OJDANIC
Think of a serial killer or mass murderer. Got it? Now try to name one of the killer’s victims. Significantly harder, right? It’s easy to name people like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, or the Zodiac Killer. Don’t feel bad if you can’t name a victim. In almost every case, the media tells you more about the killer than the victim. Think about it: we know why killers do it (for the most part), how they do it, when they do it, how they planned to get away with it, and how they got caught. This comes in the form of countless news reports followed by books, TV specials, and in some cases, movies, such as My Friend Dahmer or Zodiac. Information about serial killers should not be featured across these mediums since it has historically inspired and refined future violence and is inconsiderate to the victims’ loved ones.
In recent years, this has become more and more of a problem. Events like the Columbine High School shooting in 1999 seemed to produce numerous copycat incidents. The name “Columbine” has become so popular that it’s now synonymous with mass shootings. At the time, the media told the viewer the perpetrators’ names and exactly what was planned to happen and why. Copycats planned event after event to mimic the acts of the original perpetrators.
Journalist Malcolm Gladwell claimed that the two shooters at Columbine “laid down the ‘cultural script’ for the next generation of shooters.”
Nowadays, we see the same issue. By focusing on the twisted reasoning of murderers, the media can unintentionally inspire others to kill, or improve potential schemes.
Despite their newsworthiness, the killers’ names and methods don’t need to be mentioned. Repeating the macabre details of the crime results in glorification of the perpetrator. The act that was committed and how people can protect themselves are the only things that need mentioning. Truly think about why serial killers do such things. There are people out there that do heinous acts for attention. The media creates more killers by broadcasting the work of those before them. We watch serial killers, mass murderers, and other criminals become famous for their crimes. We watch the same television that everyone else does—which means that somewhere out there, the newest program about the killings perpetrated by The BTK (“Bind, Torture, Kill”) Killer or the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School is inspiring someone. It’s sick to think about, but it’s true. If we simply stopped showing these things, it’s likely these types of killings would decrease.
John Lennon’s killer claimed that he was ‘inspired’ to kill someone famous after walking out of a movie depicting murder and suicide. When he walked out of the theatre, he claimed to have felt that by killing John Lennon “I would become somebody.” In fact, he added that it didn’t have to be John Lennon. It could have been anyone with notoriety—all he cared about was the fame. In the cases where we watch killers get famous for their crimes, some out there believe they will gain some sort of importance if they mimic the acts others have committed.
Stephen King’s 1977 novel Rage starred a student who killed teachers at his school and held fellow students hostage. Following its release, Rage was linked to at least five school shootings. In 1988, 60 students were held at gunpoint in California. A friend of the perpetrator claimed that the perpetrator read Rage over and over. In 1989, a student in Kentucky had a nine-hour police standoff at his school. He had a copy of Rage in his bedroom. In 1993, a student killed a teacher and custodian at his school in Kentucky after receiving a low grade on his paper on Rage. In 1996, a shooter quoted the book to students as he held them hostage. In 1997, a student who shot eight of his fellow students has a copy of Rage in his locker.
Following the 1997 incident, King demanded that Rage be taken out of print. He called Rage an “accelerant” and explained that, “you don’t leave a can of gasoline where a boy with firebug tendencies can lay hands on it.” King’s argument solidifies the fact that glorifying and romanticizing these killers in novels can create more killers. Simply the ideas within Rage held by fictional characters inspired others to commit heinous acts. Imagine what people can do when they see a real person being aggrandized on TV.
Mass shootings and serial murders are so popular that there are even songs out there about them. Not just sad songs about living through a nightmare, but others too. For example, a My Chemical Romance song called “Teenagers” was inspired by the fact that the Columbine killers—and many after them—were motivated in part by the fact they were bullied. A few lines of the song say: “You’re never gonna fit in much, kid/ But if you’re troubled and hurt/ What you’ve got under your shirt/ Will make them pay for the things that they did.” This alludes to the act of bringing a weapon to school and causing supposed bullies harm. Another song, “Slow Motion” by Third Eye Blind, mentions the popularization of killing in the public eye. The song says: “Hollywood glamorized my wrath/ I’m the young, urban psychopath/ I incite murder/ For your entertainment.” This song points out the aforementioned fact that people do horrendous acts like mass murder partially because they see the “glamorized” version of past crimes on television. Foster the People’s “Pumped Up Kicks” is all about school shootings. This is evidenced in lines like: “All the other kids with the pumped up kicks/ you’d better run, better run, outrun my gun.” That’s just the chorus. Prior to the chorus, the song explains that the kid got a gun from home, and that “he's coming for you, yeah he's coming for you.” The writers of these songs didn’t come up with these lyrics off the top of their head. They have an unfortunate real-life basis.
Not only does the aggrandizement of killers in the media inspire copycats, but causes severe trauma to the victim’s families. Watching someone get abhorrent amounts of news coverage off of the death of a family member or friend must be sickening. Take, for example, the family of a school shooting victim. Their family member is dead. They are barely mentioned as more than a number. Three killed, five killed, 13 killed, 17 killed, one killed. That’s all that becomes of the child on the news. That’s it. They’ve become a number for a killer to tick off. Meanwhile the killer gets just about everything but a brand deal. Their face is plastered everywhere. Their motives and methods are plastered everywhere. It’s inescapable. This is the man that killed your son. Your son? He’s number six.
Imagine sitting at home, watching the news and having to look at your child or sibling’s killer being broadcasted all over the world. What makes the killer more important than your family? What makes the killer more important than the victims? Quite a simple answer: nothing. The killer is not more important. We don’t need to know his or her name to know what they did. Therefore, no one should gain any notoriety or fame from the act.
Understandably, the public wonders about those who would commit such crimes, but a line needs to be drawn. Flashing someone’s name along with the number of victims they had doesn’t give anyone any information. It gives the killer the satisfaction of knowing that his or her name is out there being projected with a number of victims like it’s a new high score on an arcade cabinet.
Unfortunately, we live in a society where one has to question why people gain fame from killing. Why do we need to say the name of the killer? Those who need to know will know. And that’s where it should end.
Think of a serial killer or mass murderer. Got it? Now try to name one of the killer’s victims. Significantly harder, right? It’s easy to name people like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, or the Zodiac Killer. Don’t feel bad if you can’t name a victim. In almost every case, the media tells you more about the killer than the victim. Think about it: we know why killers do it (for the most part), how they do it, when they do it, how they planned to get away with it, and how they got caught. This comes in the form of countless news reports followed by books, TV specials, and in some cases, movies, such as My Friend Dahmer or Zodiac. Information about serial killers should not be featured across these mediums since it has historically inspired and refined future violence and is inconsiderate to the victims’ loved ones.
In recent years, this has become more and more of a problem. Events like the Columbine High School shooting in 1999 seemed to produce numerous copycat incidents. The name “Columbine” has become so popular that it’s now synonymous with mass shootings. At the time, the media told the viewer the perpetrators’ names and exactly what was planned to happen and why. Copycats planned event after event to mimic the acts of the original perpetrators.
Journalist Malcolm Gladwell claimed that the two shooters at Columbine “laid down the ‘cultural script’ for the next generation of shooters.”
Nowadays, we see the same issue. By focusing on the twisted reasoning of murderers, the media can unintentionally inspire others to kill, or improve potential schemes.
Despite their newsworthiness, the killers’ names and methods don’t need to be mentioned. Repeating the macabre details of the crime results in glorification of the perpetrator. The act that was committed and how people can protect themselves are the only things that need mentioning. Truly think about why serial killers do such things. There are people out there that do heinous acts for attention. The media creates more killers by broadcasting the work of those before them. We watch serial killers, mass murderers, and other criminals become famous for their crimes. We watch the same television that everyone else does—which means that somewhere out there, the newest program about the killings perpetrated by The BTK (“Bind, Torture, Kill”) Killer or the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School is inspiring someone. It’s sick to think about, but it’s true. If we simply stopped showing these things, it’s likely these types of killings would decrease.
John Lennon’s killer claimed that he was ‘inspired’ to kill someone famous after walking out of a movie depicting murder and suicide. When he walked out of the theatre, he claimed to have felt that by killing John Lennon “I would become somebody.” In fact, he added that it didn’t have to be John Lennon. It could have been anyone with notoriety—all he cared about was the fame. In the cases where we watch killers get famous for their crimes, some out there believe they will gain some sort of importance if they mimic the acts others have committed.
Stephen King’s 1977 novel Rage starred a student who killed teachers at his school and held fellow students hostage. Following its release, Rage was linked to at least five school shootings. In 1988, 60 students were held at gunpoint in California. A friend of the perpetrator claimed that the perpetrator read Rage over and over. In 1989, a student in Kentucky had a nine-hour police standoff at his school. He had a copy of Rage in his bedroom. In 1993, a student killed a teacher and custodian at his school in Kentucky after receiving a low grade on his paper on Rage. In 1996, a shooter quoted the book to students as he held them hostage. In 1997, a student who shot eight of his fellow students has a copy of Rage in his locker.
Following the 1997 incident, King demanded that Rage be taken out of print. He called Rage an “accelerant” and explained that, “you don’t leave a can of gasoline where a boy with firebug tendencies can lay hands on it.” King’s argument solidifies the fact that glorifying and romanticizing these killers in novels can create more killers. Simply the ideas within Rage held by fictional characters inspired others to commit heinous acts. Imagine what people can do when they see a real person being aggrandized on TV.
Mass shootings and serial murders are so popular that there are even songs out there about them. Not just sad songs about living through a nightmare, but others too. For example, a My Chemical Romance song called “Teenagers” was inspired by the fact that the Columbine killers—and many after them—were motivated in part by the fact they were bullied. A few lines of the song say: “You’re never gonna fit in much, kid/ But if you’re troubled and hurt/ What you’ve got under your shirt/ Will make them pay for the things that they did.” This alludes to the act of bringing a weapon to school and causing supposed bullies harm. Another song, “Slow Motion” by Third Eye Blind, mentions the popularization of killing in the public eye. The song says: “Hollywood glamorized my wrath/ I’m the young, urban psychopath/ I incite murder/ For your entertainment.” This song points out the aforementioned fact that people do horrendous acts like mass murder partially because they see the “glamorized” version of past crimes on television. Foster the People’s “Pumped Up Kicks” is all about school shootings. This is evidenced in lines like: “All the other kids with the pumped up kicks/ you’d better run, better run, outrun my gun.” That’s just the chorus. Prior to the chorus, the song explains that the kid got a gun from home, and that “he's coming for you, yeah he's coming for you.” The writers of these songs didn’t come up with these lyrics off the top of their head. They have an unfortunate real-life basis.
Not only does the aggrandizement of killers in the media inspire copycats, but causes severe trauma to the victim’s families. Watching someone get abhorrent amounts of news coverage off of the death of a family member or friend must be sickening. Take, for example, the family of a school shooting victim. Their family member is dead. They are barely mentioned as more than a number. Three killed, five killed, 13 killed, 17 killed, one killed. That’s all that becomes of the child on the news. That’s it. They’ve become a number for a killer to tick off. Meanwhile the killer gets just about everything but a brand deal. Their face is plastered everywhere. Their motives and methods are plastered everywhere. It’s inescapable. This is the man that killed your son. Your son? He’s number six.
Imagine sitting at home, watching the news and having to look at your child or sibling’s killer being broadcasted all over the world. What makes the killer more important than your family? What makes the killer more important than the victims? Quite a simple answer: nothing. The killer is not more important. We don’t need to know his or her name to know what they did. Therefore, no one should gain any notoriety or fame from the act.
Understandably, the public wonders about those who would commit such crimes, but a line needs to be drawn. Flashing someone’s name along with the number of victims they had doesn’t give anyone any information. It gives the killer the satisfaction of knowing that his or her name is out there being projected with a number of victims like it’s a new high score on an arcade cabinet.
Unfortunately, we live in a society where one has to question why people gain fame from killing. Why do we need to say the name of the killer? Those who need to know will know. And that’s where it should end.